SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by digit on Apr 6, 2017 17:06:53 GMT -5
Also, the other key to looking at Burkhead is this: He got that few carries because he was drafted, and played behind, Giovanni Bernard and Jeremy Hill. His first two years were basically injury years when he was out. By the time he was in, Bernard and Hill were firmly established as the primary running backs. He got -most- of his carries in six games last year, starting with week 12... so 68 carries, 305 yards over those six games, ending with a full-time load when Bernard and Hill were out for the last game, a 4.5 yard carry. So no, we don't know if he can actually carry the load, but in the time he actually -did- get to carry the ball as a third stringer, he had a 4.5 yard per carry average... two games vs the Ravens, a game vs the Steelers, and a game vs the Texans in there, so it's not like he got an easy road. Cincinnati fans analysis of Burkhead's game here: www.cincyjungle.com/2017/2/6/14501064/rex-burkheads-5-best-attributesI think an in-depth analysis of Burkhead's game is going to tell you more than just looking at game logs and going 'oh, he didn't carry much'.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 6, 2017 16:44:09 GMT -5
... They're paying the man more money than the pro bowl special teamer, and somehow you don't think -that- is indicative that they have a bigger role for him than special teams?
You're basically saying they're paying him more than Blount and Lewis to be a special teamer who can back up the lead back.
And you think it's crazy that they're paying him all that money 'to be a well-rounded running back', but that it's perfectly fine to pay him MORE than the actual lead backs to back them up?
Signing Burkhead for that much money -and- signing Bolden again strikes me as, well, Belichick not looking for a special team replacement as much as he's actually looking for a running back.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 6, 2017 15:39:40 GMT -5
I kinda would prefer to give him the extension -now- than next year. Essentially, rip up his year, pay him four years, and make it essentially a three year extension with a bonus up front. That would take him to his, what, age 33 years?
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 6, 2017 15:33:18 GMT -5
They are not paying Burkhead twice as much as Bolden to just do special teams when they could have simply signed Brandon Bolden in the first place.
They're not even paying Matthew Slater, pro-bowl special teamer, -that- much...
Slater is making 1.8 million in 2017.
Burkhead is 3.15 million.
There's a reason most analysis of that signing says 'Patriots paying Burkhead like he's their starting back'. It's because he's paid like a running back, not a special teamer. Bolden made about 1.6 mil last year? It should be around that too, if he were really going to be a core special teamer.
I don't think it likely at all that Belichick has suddenly decided to set a new upper salary range for a free agent special team that's not even a pro bowler, and much more likely that he's settled on 3.1 million as being good for a well-rounded RUNNING BACK... which, incidentally, is also three times as much as what Blount made last year, and twice as much as what Dion Lewis will make in 2017.
Whether Burkhead actually -is- good enough to be a running back for a full year is another thing, but I think the special teams ability is a bonus feature, not the main feature that Burkhead's being paid for. It means his -floor- is Brandon Bolden, but his ceiling is higher than that, and he's being paid for that ceiling in this case.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 6, 2017 10:09:01 GMT -5
Texs31's take seems pretty well reasoned, and I'm starting to think that the Celtics may well lean towards Fultz now if they intend to keep Thomas. It would help relieve pressure on them in case Thomas hit a decline.
I'd give him a shorter term deal, too, if he'd sign on for four years worth at full max. It would be considerably easier to minimize damage with a contract like that. I worry a bit about a Deron Williams-esque drop in play.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 6, 2017 10:02:44 GMT -5
Analysis for Rex Burkhead at the time he was signed indicated most people saw him as a four-down back type - someone who could handle all downs in varying role, beacuse his skills -were- that diverse. I imagine signing Bolden means Burkhead plays less on fourth down, but his skills as a running back is considerably more rounded than Blount's. He's a bigger version of Dion Lewis, really. www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/13570/rex-burkhead-is-a-sneaky-and-important-signing-for-the-patriots
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 4, 2017 9:15:37 GMT -5
Without knowing who he plays with, I'd be hesistant on making generalizations about 'while he plays'.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 4, 2017 9:14:32 GMT -5
I think it's more likely a team like Cleveland would take him, since Sidney Jones have a -lot- of picks.
Maybe the Patriots could red-shirt him if they have nobody they're in love with, but personally I'd hope they take Jake Butt as their 'rehab' guy.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 1, 2017 10:50:47 GMT -5
The weird thing is, it feels like the team is deliberately coached to have the big men box out and let the small guys rebound, because a lot of times I've seen the big men turn their back to the basket when the ball is in the air to look for someone to box out while the guards go to the basket.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Apr 1, 2017 10:32:00 GMT -5
That's been something I noticed about Develin and why I thought Kyle Juszczyk would have been a better fit (though not financially.) He actualy seems to be enough of a receiving threat, though, and I think team defenses are already stressed out by trying to defend the run.
They just don't take Blount seriously enough as a receiver, though, to really put extreme stress on defenses when that happens, though, which is why Lewis (and Burkhead) would help out in causing even more chaos on defenses with Develin in there.
With Develin and Blount, you've essentially telegraphed a run. With Burkhead in there, who knows? You can run the ball with a 2 TE/Develin offense -and- pass out of it, as Burkhead is a decent enough receiver. Ditto Lewis.
I'm really looking forward to that offense.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 17:01:34 GMT -5
So basically, a better OL and Develin (and I suppose, Sarnecchia, since he's the big change in blocking schemes here) is why Blount went from among the least effective to better.
Works for me.
We still have the better OL, Develin, and Sarnecchia. Since Blount didn't do all well for most of his career without these guys, I think, I'm willing to err on the side of Blount being good, but not great.
And I think the biggest problem with the playoff running attack, all in all, was that it just didn't -function- at all even with Blount in there, which is why they fired the OL coach, and why they left Blount out there for most of the free agent period before resigning him for a 1 year contract for what, 2 million?
I mean, it should follow that if all the RBs improved and not just Blount, then any improvement in Blount's 'short yardage' skills really is attributable to the improved blocking, than to his skills, and calling him 'great' is overstating it. He wasn't all that 'great' at it for most of his career. Suddenly, last year, with improved blocking and Develin leading the way, he's 'great'?
I'd admittedly like to see what Burkhead could do with what Blount was given. I don't expect 18 TDs, but I'd sure like to see if the '3.03 average yards after contact' holds up with more carries.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 16:44:15 GMT -5
Yep. Develin's on the team. And he's damned good. I may think Kyle Juszczyk is better, but the Patriots' strength is finding complementary players that work better together, anyway.
Production per dollar, Develin's more than earned his pay for a thankless job.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 16:28:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 15:23:42 GMT -5
Now that you mention it, I think you're right, I don't remember anything that wasn't speculative.
God, rumors really are hard to sort through all that. I just remember primarily discussion that Boston apparently didn't want to take on any contracts that would mess with their chances of offering someone the max, which sounded like they were hoping to take a run again.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 14:47:36 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't want to offer up the Memphis pick for reason of that it might be much, much higher than any draft pick the Celtics have of their own for a while.
The Celtics -were- in talks for Nurkic, so I think this may just have been a case where Plumlee matched up better for the needs of Denver than anything the Celtics had.
Also, Vucevic and Chandler would've been contracts that would have made sure the Celtics COULDN'T offer max to anyone.
I think the Celtics are perfectly fine waiting on Zizic, though, and saving up assets for other moves.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 13:57:12 GMT -5
My first reaction to the Noel deal was that I wished the C's could have pulled that off (still young and a local kid), but I really don't think they could have easily matched up with the sixers for that deal. I think they might have, but the impression I got over this offseason was that the Celtics didn't want to let go of any assets for anyone they viewed as a 'rental', or someone who they wouldn't be able to extend. Because the Sixers took far, far, too long to dilly-dally over wanting to give up Okafor instead of Noel, by the time they finally let go of Noel, his value to the Celtics was far, far less because he'd become a free agent at a time when the Celtics wanted to sign a max guy. (And whatever Noel commanded would would have made the salary cap much trickier to juggle.) Don't think the draft assets the Celtics could've offered was the problem; it was how much money Noel would've commanded at a time the Celtics needed all the money to have a chance at offering the max.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 13:50:39 GMT -5
Houston doesn't really scare me much. The Pats beat them twice last year, once with Brissett at QB. In the playoffs the Pats played one of their worst games of the year and still won. But that does go to show you how easy it is to lose a football game. I dunno - the DL up the middle was what killed the Patriots when Houston shifted those really big guys up the middle. Most teams don't have guys like that, but I'd be concerned about it. In cases like that, it feels like, Thurney and Andrews need to get some help, and I think having Burkhead would -really- help with this as it'd give the Patriots more unpredictability, make it harder for defenses to send those guys up the middle. I wish we had replaced Develin with Kyle Juszczyk, make it even more unpredictable, but that contract he got was a wee bit too much.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 31, 2017 9:59:22 GMT -5
I'm just hoping Burkhead can take over Blount's role - he seems very good at short-yardage from the stats I saw brandied about when he was signed. If he can, his versatility would give the Patriots a lot more room to disguise run/pass plays, especially if they ever get Gronk and Allen on the field at the same time. With Lewis's injury history, Burkhead would help out in making it difficult to diagnoise run vs pass.
Has James White improved his running skill enough to make it even trickier? He seemed to in the Super Bowl, but that also seemed like a function of the Falcons just flatout running out of gas at the end.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:56:05 GMT -5
Dombrowski's big moves are pretty good, I think, but they've thinned out depth so much that I'd be concerned about whether he's actually prepared to handle injuries and attrition. Brock Holt is a pretty good defense against that, but I'm not sure it's the same for pitching.
And to be frank, I feel like what happened to Detroit and New York is a sign of how too many big contracts handicaps a team, and I feel like we may be headed down this road because the talent has been 'bunched' for now instead of later, so signing our young talents to extension will be that much harder. I think in lots of ways, I'd prefer the layered 'keep a team steady contenders' rather than 'push it all in to go for it now' because it feels like a much more stable approach to maintaining a winning team. I've never really been a fan of the 'win it all, stink for the next few years' approach. I'd rather be more like, say, the Spurs.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:44:48 GMT -5
And I don't love Garoppolo as much as Brady. I just think counting on him 'until he declines' is -not- a viable long-term strategy because you do NOT want to be caught during his decline phrase. At this point, I'd go year to year with him regardless of what he says, and planning like that would be a wiser course of action than "do everything you can while he plays great, then he'll retire when he declines"... yeah, I don't trust that idea one single bit.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:42:05 GMT -5
You are correct, rjp313jr. At some point. I did suggest Belichick might do the unexpected and trade Brady instead of Garoppolo,
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:41:06 GMT -5
I'm unclear who you were talking about, rjp313jr. Acquiring Nurkic, or acquiring Cousins?
From what I recall, post-Cousins trade, Ainge didn't even seem interested in trading a Nets pick for him.
I have no idea about Nurkic, though - that's one that seems like we didn't have the mid-range options available to acquire him, and I was wondering if they were trying to hold out enough cap space for the off-season for a max free agent. That seems to be a major part of the calculations involved for Ainge at the trading deadline, meaning either get a max, or get a minimum. No middle ground, it felt like.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 14:08:28 GMT -5
Christ on a bike, why is it so inconcievable that in order to -keep- Garoppolo, the Patriots -have- to move on from Brady?
You can't keep Garoppolo sitting on the bench -three- years at least. Two is at least concievable enough, but if he's the kind of player that'd be content sitting on the bench instead of starting, he's not the kind of QB you'd want to start for your franchise as a competitor.
And yes, I -have- watched the team being constructed. So let me turn that back on you.
I turn that right back on you. Given the way the team was built, does franchising a BACKUP QB two years in a row make any sense at all
And...
The whole idea that you can miss out on 1-2 TITLES while you have the Greatest becasue you didn't put enough around him... well, I submit the Patriots did exactly that in 2009-2012, because they were willing to rebuild their franchise without tearing it down. It worked, they built something that kept things going with more titles than the 1 or two more they might have gotten if they'd, say, signed Deion Branch or held on to Richard Seymour. Frustrating, no doubt, and I've heard the whinging about how they could have won more if they'd invested the money in Branch. Thing is, the picks from Seymour and Branch turned into players for this current generation that's -how- Tom Brady is in position right now to have won two of the last three Super Bowls.
That kind of management is why I just don't see the Patriots letting Brady play till he drops. They'd have to be planning for life without Brady, and no, franchising Garoppolo two years in a row is not one of those. One maybe, and that would presume Brady only plays two more years. It's why I think you'd have to overwhelm Belichick with offers more than, I think, has been done so far.
The real trick, I imagine, is whether Belichick is the type who would max out -his- career. So far, no real signs of it, I think. Just typical Belichick for the most part with 'get good players as cheaply as possible'.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 12:19:24 GMT -5
Addition:
The latest 'rumors' post-Super Bowl said he wanted to outlast Brady, from a Michael Freeman report. Eh. That could be a while.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 12:18:48 GMT -5
Bill was on record as of saying that 'not coaching in his 70s', but that was on a documentary in 2011 covering... whichever team he'd just gotten coaching that had wore him out.
That's about the last time we've heard him say anything on the matter - over the past few years, though, that seems to have gone away quietly. Interpret the silence as you will, I suppose.
|
|
|